Please Register to start posting and ask questions we here to serve You better
Long live Uganda!!!


View previous topic View next topic Go down


Post by sol_drethedon on Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:56 pm

"But instead of these educated few doing everything possible within their powers for the less educated, a tendency is developing where whoever is in business or government looks to this immediate family and not the country as a whole in opening these opportunities. the existence of these circumstances could lead to actual corruption, nepotism and abuse of responsibility"

that was the reason the charter saw a danger of society splitting into 'two nations' and because of it tried tom put forward positions that would arrest this development, to ensure equilibrium and balance:

"We can not afford to build two nations within the territorial boundaries of Uganda: one rich, educated, African in appearance but mentally foreign, and the other, which constitutes the majority of the population, poor and illiterate."

The answer to these 'circumstances' lay at the root of the problem, namely to 'generate a new attitude to life and to wealth'. If we do not act now, the charter warns, 'it may be too late to avoid violence in the future', and so the government must provide social services to the people and increase incomes per capita faster than the cost of living.

but having placed lack of education and the attitudes of the people in authority as the creators of poverty, how were these social services and per capita to increase? The charter pointed to the need for the peasants to be given credit, which financial institutions could not provide. 'it is therefore imperative that a new banking system , to be known as the cooperative bank, be established to cater solely for the peasants who are members of the cooperative union.' This however was a mere illusion, on view of the then existing crisis in the neocolonial economy. For the workers it was stipulated that they had to contribute a fraction of their earnings into a 'social security fund', which was to be 'channeled into further development'. The worker had to appreciate that there would be no advancement for him unless he saved, and unless his savings were used for his further exploitation. The charter was spelling out its real role at the level of ideology. The worker and the poor peasant were made to understand their place in the neocolonial economy.

When it came to addressing itself to the financial oligarchy and the local bourgeoisie, the charter reminded them that that 'there can be no investment' unless somebody first makes a corresponding saving'. it then went on to inform foreigners (whose influence was 'rejected' both in theory and practice!) that they could invest in Uganda and that , if they did so, their investments would be guaranteed under the law. 'In the future we would like to see foreign investors coming to Uganda... engaging in priority projects, and not projects decided solely on the basis of profitability.' Referring to nationalization, it stated that the issue was a 'settled affair':

In our Move to the left strategy, we affirm that the guiding economic principle will be that the means of production and distribution must be in the hands of the people as a whole. The fulfillment of this principle may involve nationalization of enterprises privately owned.

The party then directed the government to work 'on these lines'. It is clear from the the foregoing that the charter did not see imperialism as the principal enemy. Indeed its aim was to perpetuate the colonial domination of Uganda. To the UPC, the reality of exploitation was not a reality but merely a psychological matter. It was a question of education, and people's attitudes. Instead of the feudalistic, it was now the 'educated' who were the exploiters.

According to the charter it was the educated who were to blame for the poverty of the people, and not imperialism. Since the majority of the educated were in Buganda, it followed that the UPC, under the guise of the charter, were embarking on another campaign to divide the country along tribal lines. The Makerere University nominal role for example showed that, of the students admitted in 1950/60, 46.6% came from Buganda, while only 1.8% came from Lango. Although by 1968/9 these percentages had changed, with Buganda contributing 33.6% and Lango 5.2%, the cumulative effect of the earlier educational uneven development, as Obote himself indicated in 1952, meant that the North had very few educated people through Makerere.

It can be seen how impossible it would have been to unite the people of Uganda on the basis of such a program. It is clear that if the charter were to point to imperialism as the principle enemy of the people of Uganda, it would have been necessary to stipulate how that enemy would be combated, and the masses would have assisted on a greater role in the struggle. As it was, the reality of neocolonialism, as the UPC's objective role as agent of the imperialist neocolonial state, asserted themselves. The reality of imperialist exploitation of the people was instead mystified and the so-called lack of proper attitudes of the educated, while imperialism was given every courage to exploit the people

Perhaps it is not true out of place to draw attention to the consistency between between the arguments in the charter on this issue, and the views expressed by Obote in 1952, when he cited lack of education in the north of the country as a hindrance to 'self-government now' demanded by the UNC. While Obote's earlier reaction was an objective expression of the uneven development that imperialism exacerbated in our country, yet the struggle for self determination could not have been held up because of this uneven development, for to do so would be arguing that imperialism should continue its oppression until Uganda was evenly developed 'educationally'. It seems to us that Obote continued to suffer from these limitations, which were reflected among a section of the petty bourgeoisie throughout the whole country and these narrow views were expressed as their ideology in the charter.

Thus, as we have argued, the contradictions that arose between the petty bourgeoisie, and which imperialism exploited, arose basically out of the historical conditions and the uneven development of the country and all that followed upon it. These contradictions arose partly out of the problems inherited from our country's history, but an inheritance that imperialism now intensified in the new system of exploitation. The extraction of surplus value to the imperialist countries instead of it being used to develop the local productive forces to the full, intensified this uneven development throughout the whole country. The result was that difference in form, such as those based on religion, culture, different levels of social life(education included), and general out-look, which reflected different levels of consciousness and development, tended to sharpen that uneven development, particularly with capitalist competition which was introduced ion the midst of the people The petty competition among the petty bourgeoisie, which also manifested their petty material interests, tended to intensify these differences among the people, which were seized upon by imperialism to divide the people further. This enabled imperialism to continue the exploitation, and also tended to sharpen the contradiction between it and the people.

The purpose of the National Movement was to put a stop to this problem. To turn around now, as the Charter did, to say that it was luck of education and the correct attitudes on the part of those educated that had created uneven development was to mystify imperialism and turn the people one against the other, while imperialism was permitted to continue its exploitation of the people and the uneven development of the country,with all the consequences that followed upon it. The aim of the Charter was therefore to blunt the people's political consciousness and arrest their determination to struggle against imperialism in Uganda, and it is not surprising that when matters came to crunch with the coup of 1971, and when the 'roll was taken', the bulk of the people stood aside from Obote and the UPC, a signal that they had no confidence in the neocolonial regime.

to be continued



Posts : 510
Reputation : 34
Join date : 2011-03-24

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum